Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality & Safety in Health Care logoLink to Quality & Safety in Health Care
. 2004 Feb;13(1):26–31. doi: 10.1136/qhc.13.1.26

Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals

E Bradley 1, E Holmboe 1, J Mattera 1, S Roumanis 1, M Radford 1, H Krumholz 1
PMCID: PMC1758048  PMID: 14757796

Abstract

Background: Data feedback is a fundamental component of quality improvement efforts, but previous studies provide mixed results on its effectiveness. This study illustrates the diversity of hospital based efforts at data feedback and highlights successful strategies and common pitfalls in designing and implementing data feedback to support performance improvement.

Methods: Open ended interviews with 45 clinical and administrative staff in eight US hospitals in 2000 concerning their perceptions about the effectiveness of data feedback in supporting performance improvement efforts were analysed. The hospitals were chosen to represent a range of sizes, geographical regions, and ß blocker improvement rates over a 3 year period. Data were organized and analyzed in NUD-IST 4 using the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis.

Results: Although the data feedback efforts at the hospitals were diverse, the interviews suggested that seven key themes may be important: (1) data must be perceived by physicians as valid to motivate change; (2) it takes time to develop the credibility of data within a hospital; (3) the source and timeliness of data are critical to perceived validity; (4) benchmarking improves the meaningfulness of data feedback; (5) physician leaders can enhance the effectiveness of data feedback; (6) data feedback that profiles an individual physician's practices can be effective but may be perceived as punitive; (7) data feedback must persist to sustain improved performance. Embedded in several themes was the view that the effectiveness of data feedback depends not only on the quality and timeliness of the data, but also on the organizational context in which such efforts are implemented.

Conclusions: Data feedback is a complex and textured concept. Data feedback strategies that might be most effective are suggested, as well as potential pitfalls in using data to promote performance improvement.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (235.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Axt-Adam P., van der Wouden J. C., van der Does E. Influencing behavior of physicians ordering laboratory tests: a literature study. Med Care. 1993 Sep;31(9):784–794. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199309000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Balas E. A., Boren S. A., Brown G. D., Ewigman B. G., Mitchell J. A., Perkoff G. T. Effect of physician profiling on utilization. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med. 1996 Oct;11(10):584–590. doi: 10.1007/BF02599025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbour R. S. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ. 2001 May 5;322(7294):1115–1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berwick D. M. A primer on leading the improvement of systems. BMJ. 1996 Mar 9;312(7031):619–622. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7031.619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradley E. H., Holmboe E. S., Mattera J. A., Roumanis S. A., Radford M. J., Krumholz H. M. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: Why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA. 2001 May 23;285(20):2604–2611. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.20.2604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Buntinx F., Winkens R., Grol R., Knottnerus J. A. Influencing diagnostic and preventive performance in ambulatory care by feedback and reminders. A review. Fam Pract. 1993 Jun;10(2):219–228. doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.2.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen J., Radford M. J., Wang Y., Marciniak T. A., Krumholz H. M. Are beta-blockers effective in elderly patients who undergo coronary revascularization after acute myocardial infarction? Arch Intern Med. 2000 Apr 10;160(7):947–952. doi: 10.1001/archinte.160.7.947. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Devers K. J. How will we know "good" qualitative research when we see it? Beginning the dialogue in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999 Dec;34(5 Pt 2):1153–1188. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Eisenberg J. M. Physician utilization. The state of research about physicians' practice patterns. Med Care. 1985 May;23(5):461–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eisenberg J. M., Williams S. V. Cost containment and changing physicians' practice behavior. Can the fox learn to guard the chicken coop? JAMA. 1981 Nov 13;246(19):2195–2201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellerbeck E. F., Jencks S. F., Radford M. J., Kresowik T. F., Craig A. S., Gold J. A., Krumholz H. M., Vogel R. A. Quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. A four-state pilot study from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1995 May 17;273(19):1509–1514. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hjalmarson A., Elmfeldt D., Herlitz J., Holmberg S., Málek I., Nyberg G., Rydén L., Swedberg K., Vedin A., Waagstein F. Effect on mortality of metoprolol in acute myocardial infarction. A double-blind randomised trial. Lancet. 1981 Oct 17;2(8251):823–827. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)91101-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Jencks S. F., Cuerdon T., Burwen D. R., Fleming B., Houck P. M., Kussmaul A. E., Nilasena D. S., Ordin D. L., Arday D. R. Quality of medical care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries: A profile at state and national levels. JAMA. 2000 Oct 4;284(13):1670–1676. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.13.1670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jencks Stephen F., Huff Edwin D., Cuerdon Timothy. Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001. JAMA. 2003 Jan 15;289(3):305–312. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.3.305. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kanouse D. E., Jacoby I. When does information change practitioners' behavior? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1988;4(1):27–33. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300003214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Krumholz H. M., Radford M. J., Wang Y., Chen J., Heiat A., Marciniak T. A. National use and effectiveness of beta-blockers for the treatment of elderly patients after acute myocardial infarction: National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998 Aug 19;280(7):623–629. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.7.623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Leape L. L. Error in medicine. JAMA. 1994 Dec 21;272(23):1851–1857. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mannion R., Goddard M. Impact of published clinical outcomes data: case study in NHS hospital trusts. BMJ. 2001 Aug 4;323(7307):260–263. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7307.260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Marciniak T. A., Ellerbeck E. F., Radford M. J., Kresowik T. F., Gold J. A., Krumholz H. M., Kiefe C. I., Allman R. M., Vogel R. A., Jencks S. F. Improving the quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998 May 6;279(17):1351–1357. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.17.1351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Marshall M. N. Improving quality in general practice: qualitative case study of barriers faced by health authorities. BMJ. 1999 Jul 17;319(7203):164–167. doi: 10.1136/bmj.319.7203.164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Marshall M. N., Shekelle P. G., Leatherman S., Brook R. H. Public disclosure of performance data: learning from the US experience. Qual Health Care. 2000 Mar;9(1):53–57. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.1.53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Marshall M. N., Shekelle P. G., Leatherman S., Brook R. H. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000 Apr 12;283(14):1866–1874. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.14.1866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mays N., Pope C. Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ. 1995 Jul 8;311(6997):109–112. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.6997.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Meehan T. P., Hennen J., Radford M. J., Petrillo M. K., Elstein P., Ballard D. J. Process and outcome of care for acute myocardial infarction among Medicare beneficiaries in Connecticut: a quality improvement demonstration project. Ann Intern Med. 1995 Jun 15;122(12):928–936. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-122-12-199506150-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mugford M., Banfield P., O'Hanlon M. Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review. BMJ. 1991 Aug 17;303(6799):398–402. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6799.398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Pope C., Ziebland S., Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000 Jan 8;320(7227):114–116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ryan T. J., Anderson J. L., Antman E. M., Braniff B. A., Brooks N. H., Califf R. M., Hillis L. D., Hiratzka L. F., Rapaport E., Riegel B. J. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996 Nov 1;28(5):1328–1428. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00392-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Yusuf S., Peto R., Lewis J., Collins R., Sleight P. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985 Mar-Apr;27(5):335–371. doi: 10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality & safety in health care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES